Jurassic park a favorite of scientists in your department? I suppose they might be forgiven for putting it tops for entertainment/childhood nostalgia reasons though I sure wouldn't; Spielberg movies make me gag so none of his will ever make my top list. But I hope they are appalled at the horrible science in the movie and the book. That piece of cinema drek couldn't even get the period right (the dino stars in the movie did not live in the Jurassic).

PSA: just about every citation index and impact factor has a version that excludes self-cites, but it's often not the default, so please seek it out if you're going to use these things. (Which you shouldn't use for much beyond entertainment given their other limitations -- rant over.)

"It isn't faith that makes good science, Mr. Klaatu, it's Curiosity." // Barnhardt

Laugh away but i liked that Clinton said she "believed in science".

@6 are you talking about the PNAS paper where they looked at *job* applications in science? They used the same applications but swapped male and female names. They found a small (but real) bias in estimates of the candidate's "hireability", competence and how they might respond to mentoring and they found a real (though small) difference in the salary when they offered candidates the position. Both male and female hiring managers showed the same bias. This is the paper; Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., et al. "Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.41 (2012): 16474-16479.

I have not heard of the study that showed that there is a sex bias in getting papers accepted. Not saying it doest exist. I'm just unaware of it. I'm also not sure how such a study would work given what I know about how papers are reviewed, but maybe you can post the citation to the study.

So who here is going to stop flossing, since there turns out to be no scientific evidence that there's any benefit to the practice?

Clinton probably said she believed in science in somewhat sarcastic reference to various Republican idiots who say they don't believe in climate change, evolution, et al.

1. Science: the sky is blue.
2. Republicans: can't trust those scientists, there they go again.
3. Greens: Bah, science is tainted by corporations!
4. Clinton: I believe science.
5. Wired: Clinton should stop politicizing science.
6. E Linck: Bad Hillary. She's being tribal.

I'm with her.

As one of the grad students in the UW Bio Dept who was doubtless part of this sample, I will add that not only do I like Jurassic Park, I think it might be my favorite movie ever. I'm aware of the scientific inaccuracies. There are at least three books detailing them all, but that's what suspension of belief is all about. As for "putting it tops for entertainment/childhood nostalgia reasons", what other criteria would I use than entertainment? It's not an Attenborough documentary; it's a perfectly plotted, expertly mixed, masterfully acted horror movie in a summer action movie candy shell.

@12 Well, as they say there is no accounting for taste. I'm glad you like it and I am well aware that I am in a minority when I say I dislike JP. You should see the horror in people eyes when I say I can't stand Star Wars. Of course movies like JP are about suspension of belief and I wasn't commenting on that. As a scientist myself I know well that there are few movies that get much science right anyway. The article points out that a group of scientists liked the movie and I made my comment because it can't be for the science (cause it's bad) and can only be because they have bad taste in movies. ;-)

*runs away*

@13 lol. Yeah, I'm still looking for a well-done sci-fi movie that gets the science right.

Besides all the science that it got wrong, I actually think Jurassic Park is not that great a movie.

*runs away*

Jurassic Park is okay, but I feel like it contributes to the idea that paleontology is just dinosaurs and nothing else.

@3: This this this and this.

Also I cite maaself, oh maybe, 1.5 times in each of my papers, because I'm usually more focused on the present and future of whatever research I'm writing about.

Oh and here's something interesting I discovered when reviewing some papers for a grant recently. It seems like only men do this: cite papers of their own that don't exist. I saw this countless times in patent applications and a few times on papers I've been reading, where someone will just cite a paper in a journal years before the journal came into being, or in a volume that doesn't exist. Or it will say "In Press" on multiple consecutive papers for ten years. As a patent examiner I would have to hunt that fucker down, and involve a search agent, and have a meeting with the attorney. Often (I mean, OFTEN) to no avail. And it was always a dude. I'm sorry, it always was. Whether because men publish more, or what. Those names are deeply engrained in my head because I wasted so much time chasing their ghost papers...

You know Jill Stein's PRO-vaccine observation that "In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs" is pretty empirically sound. Scientific. Do you think it's unscientific for Stein to identify what is different between the US and other countries? That "regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs " in the US, leading to mistrust of health agency policy.

You guys are accusing someone who says that decreasing vaccination rates "must be fixed" is a "pander to anti-vaxxers"?? Are you high? Stein says low vaccination rates are bad thing, and high vaccination rates are a good thing, and we should do what countries with high vaccination rates do, because STEIN WANTS HIGHER VACCINATION RATES.

You're accusing her of saying the opposite of what she said, and being a really smug prick about it. *Facepalm*

Are you pissed at her because she's supporting the empirically successful policies of EU countries, rather than the less successful, and fucking fascist, mandatory vaccination policies of places like North Korea? All because the concept of vaccine exemptions -- the norm in advanced countries with successful vaccination programs -- freaks you out for some reason? How is that scientific?

Also, which part of this is unscientific: "For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being 'tested' and 'reviewed' by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic"?

She is telling homeopaths to stop using ignorance as a basis for trust. That's a direct assault on the unscientific thinking that underpins homeopathy, and it flew right over your head. Stein is also saying if we cleaned up our health agencies' regulatory capture problem, we would torpedo the anti-vaxxer's and homeopath's main arguments. We'd change their fucking minds! Which is way more constructive than whatever it is that you think you're doing.

Jesus, I don't know what to do with this "Science News" Ethan Linck person. Delete your account, dude. You suck at science.

@17 Ethan Linck is a partisan hack without credibility. In his last column, his main source was some weirdo who not only denied that neonics played a significant part in bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) but also claimed that CCD was a myth.

@15, I would have LOVED to see more Jurassic plants. And dragonflies the size of hawks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic

@19: JP definitely needed more Auracarias

I didn't like "Jurassic Park", idiot-ball plot and very obviously manipulative. Oh, and "Jaws" was never my scene (as Morbo says 'Sharks do not work that way!'), and I don't like "Star Wars" (I preferred science fiction, and still do).

And what's worse, Ms Clinton's saying that she believes in science or many of her opponents' demonstrating that they don't without owning-up to it? I'm sorry, but in the America so redolent of people who'd looove to impose Biblical law that they're sure that Muslims are trying to impose Quranic rules and the most popular TV show mocks scientists, speaking up for science seems a good thing.

I did a lot of self-citing because I was breaking new ground; I've no idea if this maps reliably onto (or into) gender, but I doubt it.

ethan link is obviously not qualified to define "science" or what our best and most current research suggest

GMOs usually are employed to allow roundup use to kill weeds. So although the gmo nature of corn etc may be benign (though this is questionable when you ask to what ends... For example it may be perfectly nutritious yet fuck up the ecosystem) the prime ingredient in roundup is beginning to be shown by many studies to be cancer causing and generally very bad. And all that aside even if GMOs AND round up were never shown to be harmful in any way, why would scientists want people to not have information about their food?!?!

Smh

Even if GMOs are safe for human consumption, they sure as fuck aren't helping honey bees and monarch butterflies. That's why I eat organic, that's why I support GMO label laws.

@8 - I stopped flossing years ago, glad to be finally vindicated! I don't even brush that frequently either. But, I do use toothpicks multiple times each day (basically every time I eat). Been doing this for years. Went to a dentist after 13 years (of not seeing one), they said "whatever you are doing, keep doing it!" Toothpicks work great, my teeth+gums are quite happy.

Someone should do a study on using toothpicks for oral hygiene.

@27

You really do need to ACTUALLY READ SHIT, Mr. Science Mansplainer.

You just posted a link that said this:

Furthermore, at first sight there seems to be no striking difference in vaccination coverage between countries that only recommend certain vaccinations and countries that oblige them [1,12], although from studies it is known that making influenza vaccination mandatory for healthcare workers can increase the vaccination coverage rates in this particular group [13]. On the other hand, in 2008 the Veneto region in Italy, with a population of five million, abolished all mandatory vaccination, and the coverage trend was carefully monitored. A vaccine coverage evaluation, performed in the region during 2010 for the 2008 birth cohort (the first cohort concerned by the change), revealed a slight decline of immunisation coverage rates for all the vaccinations mandatory prior to 2008 (diphtheria, hepatitis B, polio, tetanus) though levels remain well above the objective of 95%, as aimed for by the Italian National Immunisation Plan [14].

You hear a "dog whistle" because you hear what you want to hear.

The part I can't figure out is why you guys are so committed to the idea of having pharma reps setting policy at the NIH and FDA. You like it this way? You are fucking making this pig headed, illiterate, blind rage attack on Jill Stein, without taking five minutes to read a fucking thing, because she wants industry shills out of health care.

I remember when the issue was coal trains and oil and offshore drilling. Then all you guys did seem to not want industries regulating themselves. Something has made you all crazy.

Jesus, dude, this is not a topic you should be speaking on. "Kids don't have access to this thing, but we want them to have it, so let's pass a law making it MANDATORY. Problem solved!" Holy shit. Just think about that.

Your basic problem is you have no clue about where vaccines are mandatory. In the US, the answer is almost nowhere. I can see how someone going through life thinking vaccines have been mandatory would have a huge handicap in following this discussion.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/scho…

When you say "Without mandates in the US we would not be able to get enough coverage to achieve herd immunity" you reveal a profound ignorance. We've never had mandates except in a couple small states, and we have had herd immunity, almost everywhere, for a very long time. Now California and Vermont are going to try mandates, but school hasn't started yet. Guess we'll see in the fall, when the shit hits that fan.

People who mistrust and fear the government have not been vaccinating, and causing pockets of low immunity. So the answer is to get the government to force them to vaccinate. What better way to put a stop to all that fear and mistrust? What could go wrong?

Jill Stein is openly advocating continuing the same system that has worked throughout the US, and the rest of the world, for a very long time. She's proposes cutting the graft and corruption out of the regulatory bodies, whether it's Wall Street regulators or pharmaceutical regulators. And some partisan hacks proceeded to spew ignorant, dishonest attacks on her. Because they think that will make people trust Hillary now? I guess.

Never call anyone else an idiot, useful or otherwise, OK?